We've all heard of the trickle down effect, made popular in the Reagan era. The concept is that if you give someone extra money, he will spend it, and the person he spends the money on will have more money and so on, until everyone gets a piece. This concept is also debated in the race to fix the economy, as the goal of both tax breaks or stimulus bills is to put more money into the hands of the people so that they can spread it around.
Because the economy is the way it is, and perhaps because we are nearing the end of winter, people are starting to get edgy. I have heard stories of the "shrinking middle class" (newsflash, if the Kindle is Amazon's best selling product, the middle class is fine). People are suspicious and angry about "fat cats" on Wall Street making millions of dollars. Some of this anger is justified, given that taxpayer money bailed these people out.
However, I would like to explain why, when no bailout is applicable, fat cats and high corporate profits are not a problem for any of us.
First of all, in a free market the price of goods are set by supply and demand. There may be some resentment against corporations about the price of the goods or services we acquire from them. However, when there is no unethical behavior (lying), the price is the price. If a company sets a price for a product unreasonably high, eventually they will have to lower it as the market adjusts.
Now, on to corporate profits.
There are essentially a limited number of things that a company can do with their net income (bottom line after tax). It doesn't matter if their profit margin is 1% or 100%, a company's net income is good for everyone.
One way a company may spend their net income is to give raises and bonuses to their executives. If you remember the trickle down effect noted above, this is a good thing. If you are particularly upset about executive pay (I have blogged on that before), then I suggest you consider the company using its income to give raises to the meat and potatoes employees. A company that has a net loss or bad year is not going to give as good of raises to ANY employee, executive or entry level. The other good thing about a company using income to doll out raises and bonuses, is that the different levels will spend differently, thereby affecting different areas of the economy. An entry level employee may buy a TV or a bike or start building a deck. An executive may buy a vacation home, a yacht, or a luxury car. All these industries need customers.
But what, you say, if the employees throw the money into savings? Well, this is also an option for the company - to throw their net income into savings. Whether on the individual or corporate scale, people put money into banks that pay ridiculously low interest rates. These banks loan the money out to others at higher interest rates. Although the money is borrowed, the money goes towards a variety of expansion projects - from funding new business to building and purchasing houses, and sometimes to getting that yacht. Once again, even though the money is technically being saved, it is actually being spent by someone else, thus helping the economy.
One thing companies are expected to do with their income is to pay out dividends. A portion of the income is passed on to stockholders, who include anyone from the chief officers (go back up to the bonus paragraph) to individual shareholders who own less than 1,000 shares each, to retirement accounts and 401(k)'s that contain some form of the company stock. Just think about investments, because we all have a stake in the stock market in some way - like this: any time a company succeeds, you get a little richer!
The final thing the company can do is reinvest the earnings. They may do this by expanding their assets, such as purchasing a new world headquarters, streamlining their fleet of trucks, or opening an office in Detroit. In each case, this reinvestment results in jobs for someone, either within the company, or perhaps at the truck company they purchase from. Another thing they can do to invest is to purchase companies that would fit within their business model. Once again, they grow the company, expanding jobs, and an "exec" at a mom and pop business retires with a hefty pension based on the deal.
So, you see, although there is a lot of animosity towards "corporate earnings" and CEO's, because our economy is linked we all succeed together or fail together. I call this the trickle around effect, because what goes around comes around. If we want to be employed, to expect raises, and to be able to meet our full potential in earnings and as human beings, we must be respectful of the institutions that allow us to do that. Those institutions are our employers and the corporations that help to keep America running and goods priced low.
Don't bite the hand that feeds you.
Thursday, February 18, 2010
Monday, February 15, 2010
The Rising Costs of Healthcare
Why is health care so expensive? And what is the solution to lower the price? These have been the main topic of debate in the news and politics over the last six months.
It's time for a little history lesson. Not so long ago, healthcare was not as good as it is now. Pennicillin was not discovered until the first half of the 20th century. Treatments for diabetes came along later. Leaps and bounds have been made in the areas of medical technologies, drugs, and even sanitation. Because of all this, people are living longer. People with diseases that were once deadly now live and require ongoing treatments. Is this a bad thing? Not at all.
In addition to longer (but not necessarily healthier) lives, there are more of us to take care of. The baby boomer generation has aged, and now the largest group in the population today is also the group that requires near-constant medical attention.
The smaller population groups are asked to provide the care in the forms of doctors, nurses, pharmacists, etc. They are asked to assist financially. There are just not enough of us to go around.
Here we have a simple case of demand outstripping supply. When that happens, there is a shortage, and costs automatically rise.
Now, if we wanted to lower costs, we need to encourage more people to enter the medical field. And we probably need to stop research and development. Let's face it, once a cure has been found, everyone thinks they are entitled to it. So the simple solution to lowering medical costs would be to stop finding ways to save lives. (I offer this up as mere satire).
Another reason for high costs is the cost of research and development itself. Look at drugs. People complain about the high cost of a miracle drug that is saving their life. No one complains about the miracle. Drugs become generic so quickly these days, that pharmaceutical research companies have to mark up the price of their drugs 1,000% or more just to get by. For every drug that is marketed, many are dropped from studies. Each drug requires years and years of development and testing on hundreds of subjects.
Should the price of prescription drugs become more affordable, what I mentioned earlier will automatically happen - drug makers will simply give up finding new drugs. Yes, they will lower the cost of their drugs, but what we have now is what we will always ever have. And though the people who are being helped with the miracle drugs can now pay less, those with diseases not yet cured will never be helped.
Someone suggested that the government take research and development away from the companies, so that the companies could lower the prices without harming innovation. I think this is a bad idea for many reasons. First of all, the government is not efficient. Without being profit motivated it is, well, not motivated. We have seen the success of leaving research projects in the hands of the people. For instance, where space is concerned, private developers have picked up where NASA left off. Second, prices would still be high. We would no longer be paying them for prescriptions but to fund the research and development projects. Ultimately, then, this would be a tax on healthy people. We would pay higher taxes to fund lower prescription drugs for those who are unhealthy and already taking them. Finally, the government is not scrupulous. I have little faith in a government to avoid unethical experiments. It is true that businesses may perform them now, monitored by the government. However, if the government suddenly found itself with the power to research, it would start to bend the envelope further and further, and this time there would be no watchdog to stop it.
Another reason costs are so high are the lawsuits people file against medical practitioners. Here we may see one of the areas for greatest cost-cutting if applied correctly. Medical lawsuits, and most lawsuits for that matter, have blurred the lines of innocence and responsibility. No longer are doctors allows human errors - perfection is required or else millions of dollars may be paid out. Hindsight is 20/20, and lawsuits thrive on Monday morning quarterbacking. For this reason, doctors order excessive tests that are not necessary, just to make sure they don't miss something.
To cut these costs, tort reform is a good place to start. Another is with the people. Instead of having 10 tests performed when we go to the doctor with a headache, we should talk to the doctor and take his advice. Find out what the tests he suggests test for. Find out the odds that you have that disease. Find out what the worst case scenario outcome of having that disease go undiagnosed is. Ask for medicine that treats the problem, not just the symptoms. And above all, don't sue!
Now, I'm not saying that it's bad to sue a doctor who leaves his glove in a loved one who consequently dies. Or who amputates the wrong arm. However, even here we should be rational. Will a lawsuit bring back your sister? If it was your husband who was the bread earner, you may need the money to get by now. What do your career prospects look like now that you are armless? How much do you need to get by? We don't need to award multi-multi-million dollar lawsuits just because a doctor makes an honest mistake.
Finally, healthcare is expensive because we, the American people, are paying for it. Ever year billions of dollars of taxpayer money go to fund Medicare and Medicaid. Programs like these allow low income Americans to waltz into a doctors office any time they want - if their child coughs. While millions of other Americans stay at home with the sick kid and wait it out, either because they cannot afford the doctors visit, or because they are being responsible. In this regard, someone who only makes a few thousand dollars more than a Medicaid recipient is many times worse off than the latter and is being penalized for being wealthi-er.
If people on Medicaid were forced to pay any sort of copay, even a relatively small one, for doctors visits, it would free up doctors for other patients, earn back a small portion of the cost, and force people to consider responsibility in determining what warrants a doctor's visit.
These are things to consider when having a healthcare debate, because these issues are not easy to solve, and they may not actually need solving. Healthcare, like any other part of society, is a free market. If insurance premiums rise, it is because costs or demand rise. If Healthcare is 1/6 of our economy, it is because that is what people choose to find important. There is not an easy solution to the high costs, but there doesn't necessarily have to be. Eventually supply will catch up and if it does not, people will learn to accept a lower quality of healthcare. There is nothing wrong with that - people have survived on this planet for thousands of years with much less than we now know.
It's time for a little history lesson. Not so long ago, healthcare was not as good as it is now. Pennicillin was not discovered until the first half of the 20th century. Treatments for diabetes came along later. Leaps and bounds have been made in the areas of medical technologies, drugs, and even sanitation. Because of all this, people are living longer. People with diseases that were once deadly now live and require ongoing treatments. Is this a bad thing? Not at all.
In addition to longer (but not necessarily healthier) lives, there are more of us to take care of. The baby boomer generation has aged, and now the largest group in the population today is also the group that requires near-constant medical attention.
The smaller population groups are asked to provide the care in the forms of doctors, nurses, pharmacists, etc. They are asked to assist financially. There are just not enough of us to go around.
Here we have a simple case of demand outstripping supply. When that happens, there is a shortage, and costs automatically rise.
Now, if we wanted to lower costs, we need to encourage more people to enter the medical field. And we probably need to stop research and development. Let's face it, once a cure has been found, everyone thinks they are entitled to it. So the simple solution to lowering medical costs would be to stop finding ways to save lives. (I offer this up as mere satire).
Another reason for high costs is the cost of research and development itself. Look at drugs. People complain about the high cost of a miracle drug that is saving their life. No one complains about the miracle. Drugs become generic so quickly these days, that pharmaceutical research companies have to mark up the price of their drugs 1,000% or more just to get by. For every drug that is marketed, many are dropped from studies. Each drug requires years and years of development and testing on hundreds of subjects.
Should the price of prescription drugs become more affordable, what I mentioned earlier will automatically happen - drug makers will simply give up finding new drugs. Yes, they will lower the cost of their drugs, but what we have now is what we will always ever have. And though the people who are being helped with the miracle drugs can now pay less, those with diseases not yet cured will never be helped.
Someone suggested that the government take research and development away from the companies, so that the companies could lower the prices without harming innovation. I think this is a bad idea for many reasons. First of all, the government is not efficient. Without being profit motivated it is, well, not motivated. We have seen the success of leaving research projects in the hands of the people. For instance, where space is concerned, private developers have picked up where NASA left off. Second, prices would still be high. We would no longer be paying them for prescriptions but to fund the research and development projects. Ultimately, then, this would be a tax on healthy people. We would pay higher taxes to fund lower prescription drugs for those who are unhealthy and already taking them. Finally, the government is not scrupulous. I have little faith in a government to avoid unethical experiments. It is true that businesses may perform them now, monitored by the government. However, if the government suddenly found itself with the power to research, it would start to bend the envelope further and further, and this time there would be no watchdog to stop it.
Another reason costs are so high are the lawsuits people file against medical practitioners. Here we may see one of the areas for greatest cost-cutting if applied correctly. Medical lawsuits, and most lawsuits for that matter, have blurred the lines of innocence and responsibility. No longer are doctors allows human errors - perfection is required or else millions of dollars may be paid out. Hindsight is 20/20, and lawsuits thrive on Monday morning quarterbacking. For this reason, doctors order excessive tests that are not necessary, just to make sure they don't miss something.
To cut these costs, tort reform is a good place to start. Another is with the people. Instead of having 10 tests performed when we go to the doctor with a headache, we should talk to the doctor and take his advice. Find out what the tests he suggests test for. Find out the odds that you have that disease. Find out what the worst case scenario outcome of having that disease go undiagnosed is. Ask for medicine that treats the problem, not just the symptoms. And above all, don't sue!
Now, I'm not saying that it's bad to sue a doctor who leaves his glove in a loved one who consequently dies. Or who amputates the wrong arm. However, even here we should be rational. Will a lawsuit bring back your sister? If it was your husband who was the bread earner, you may need the money to get by now. What do your career prospects look like now that you are armless? How much do you need to get by? We don't need to award multi-multi-million dollar lawsuits just because a doctor makes an honest mistake.
Finally, healthcare is expensive because we, the American people, are paying for it. Ever year billions of dollars of taxpayer money go to fund Medicare and Medicaid. Programs like these allow low income Americans to waltz into a doctors office any time they want - if their child coughs. While millions of other Americans stay at home with the sick kid and wait it out, either because they cannot afford the doctors visit, or because they are being responsible. In this regard, someone who only makes a few thousand dollars more than a Medicaid recipient is many times worse off than the latter and is being penalized for being wealthi-er.
If people on Medicaid were forced to pay any sort of copay, even a relatively small one, for doctors visits, it would free up doctors for other patients, earn back a small portion of the cost, and force people to consider responsibility in determining what warrants a doctor's visit.
These are things to consider when having a healthcare debate, because these issues are not easy to solve, and they may not actually need solving. Healthcare, like any other part of society, is a free market. If insurance premiums rise, it is because costs or demand rise. If Healthcare is 1/6 of our economy, it is because that is what people choose to find important. There is not an easy solution to the high costs, but there doesn't necessarily have to be. Eventually supply will catch up and if it does not, people will learn to accept a lower quality of healthcare. There is nothing wrong with that - people have survived on this planet for thousands of years with much less than we now know.
The Myth of the Pre-Existing Condition
The health care debate is alive and well in congress, as the American people continue to have little say in the matter. However, one element that appears to be a focus of both parties is to push for insurers to cover pre-existing conditions, or to not charge high premiums for these.
I mentioned in a previous post that healthcare is not a right, and that doctors will treat someone regardless of whether or not they have insurance. Just to clarify, I was speaking of emergency life-saving treatments, not routine prevention care. However, I reiterate now that healthcare, or health insurance, is not a right. Further, this debate is not about the right to health care, but the right to CHEAP healthcare, and that is not a right at all.
Health insurance is still insurance, and insurance is a hedge. Let me explain how this works. Sally pays $100 a month in premiums on her insurance. Her work pays $100 for her. She goes to the doctor once a year and pays $50 for the visit as a copay. Her total healthcare cost out of pocket is $1,250.
The insurance company receives $2,400 on Sally. They spend $400 as their portion of her doctor's visit, meaning they make $2,000. However, Sally is not the only customer of the insurance company. Bob, Amy, Derek, and Lindsay also are patients. Together, the insurance company recieves $12,000 from these customers. As mentioned before, they pay $400 for Sally's doctor visit, $600 for a visit and X-ray for Bob, Amy doesn't use any medical services during the year, they pay $1,000 for Derek during his bout with pneumonia, and they pay $6,000 for Lindsay when she breaks her leg. Altogether, the company pays $8,000 in medical claims during the year, leaving a $4,000 profit. The majority of this extra goes towards paying the salaries and operating expenses of the company. (I have heard insurance companies make as little as 2% profit).
Now, the insurance company makes its money by pooling people together. You see that, if Lindsay had been the only customer, they would have lost money. And their margins on Derek would have been much lower. The more people in a pool, the more people the risk is spread across. The insurance company has actuaries that calculate the expected medical costs and risks, and what the company needs to charge based on the risk level of a group.
So let's put a pre-existing condition on the charts. Let's say now that Amy has diabetes. She knows for sure that she will have to attend four doctor's appointments a year, buy $100 worth of medicine a month, and there is a chance she will be hospitalized at least once in the next two years.
The insurance company knows this, too. They know that she will cost them $1,600 in doctor's visits, $1,200 in medicine, and probably $2,000 on average per year in hospital visits. Therefore, they need to charge her premiums of $4,800 - double what she is now paying - just to recover costs, not to mention paying for operating costs and a small profit margin.
For, you see, this is what pre-existing conditions do. They change the insurance contract from a hedge, to a sure thing. Somehow people feel as though the insurance company is obligated to insure them, even though to do so is the worst possible thing that the company could do!
Let's look at Sally again. She doesn't get sick - she just has her doctor's appointment on a yearly basis as a preventative measure. She knows that if she did not have insurance, instead of paying $1,250 for premiums and copay, she could pay $450 in total for the doctor's visit. However, she chooses to keep the insurance because she is afraid of a broken leg or hospital visit that will cost much more than $1,250 - perhaps more than what she could save over the course of years and years without insurance. This is how insurance works in the free market - Sally pays what she pays because the comfort of knowing that she won't go broke in a few years due to medical expenses outweighs the actual cost that she spends on the insurance.
Not so with a pre-existing condition. Both parties know exactly how much this condition is going to cost in the next few years. In fact, the insurance company probably has a better understanding because of their actuaries. No longer is this a free market contract deal - it is one party feeling as though they deserve coverage and another party knowing that it is financial suicide to offer it.
Perhaps one answer to the question would be insurance contracts that cover the person for any NEW conditions but that specifically exclude conditions that the insured already has. Or the company could offer greater pools of people, mixed with both healthy and unhealth, in order to spread the cost.
On the other hand, for Congress to force this issue upon insurance companies would be a sad day for free markets. It would be an act of giving in to people who feel entitled to something. Put another way, Joe and Amy both make the same amount. Joe has no health care costs. Amy has to spend $5,000 in her health care costs. She feels entitled to have that money back because JOE doesn't have to pay it. There is no guarantee that your life will be as easy as any one other person's. Life is not fair.
I write this only to show that some of the ideas thrown around in the healthcare debate are not logical at all. They are based purely on emotion and on pleasing the crowd, with little thought given to what is actually being said. Even I blindly nodded when people mentioned pre-existing conditions, until I actually sat down to think about the math. Is it right that companies that employ thousands of Americans and provide a valuable service to millions others should go out of business while in the very act of providing what can only be described as forced charity on the rest of the country?
There are other ways.
I mentioned in a previous post that healthcare is not a right, and that doctors will treat someone regardless of whether or not they have insurance. Just to clarify, I was speaking of emergency life-saving treatments, not routine prevention care. However, I reiterate now that healthcare, or health insurance, is not a right. Further, this debate is not about the right to health care, but the right to CHEAP healthcare, and that is not a right at all.
Health insurance is still insurance, and insurance is a hedge. Let me explain how this works. Sally pays $100 a month in premiums on her insurance. Her work pays $100 for her. She goes to the doctor once a year and pays $50 for the visit as a copay. Her total healthcare cost out of pocket is $1,250.
The insurance company receives $2,400 on Sally. They spend $400 as their portion of her doctor's visit, meaning they make $2,000. However, Sally is not the only customer of the insurance company. Bob, Amy, Derek, and Lindsay also are patients. Together, the insurance company recieves $12,000 from these customers. As mentioned before, they pay $400 for Sally's doctor visit, $600 for a visit and X-ray for Bob, Amy doesn't use any medical services during the year, they pay $1,000 for Derek during his bout with pneumonia, and they pay $6,000 for Lindsay when she breaks her leg. Altogether, the company pays $8,000 in medical claims during the year, leaving a $4,000 profit. The majority of this extra goes towards paying the salaries and operating expenses of the company. (I have heard insurance companies make as little as 2% profit).
Now, the insurance company makes its money by pooling people together. You see that, if Lindsay had been the only customer, they would have lost money. And their margins on Derek would have been much lower. The more people in a pool, the more people the risk is spread across. The insurance company has actuaries that calculate the expected medical costs and risks, and what the company needs to charge based on the risk level of a group.
So let's put a pre-existing condition on the charts. Let's say now that Amy has diabetes. She knows for sure that she will have to attend four doctor's appointments a year, buy $100 worth of medicine a month, and there is a chance she will be hospitalized at least once in the next two years.
The insurance company knows this, too. They know that she will cost them $1,600 in doctor's visits, $1,200 in medicine, and probably $2,000 on average per year in hospital visits. Therefore, they need to charge her premiums of $4,800 - double what she is now paying - just to recover costs, not to mention paying for operating costs and a small profit margin.
For, you see, this is what pre-existing conditions do. They change the insurance contract from a hedge, to a sure thing. Somehow people feel as though the insurance company is obligated to insure them, even though to do so is the worst possible thing that the company could do!
Let's look at Sally again. She doesn't get sick - she just has her doctor's appointment on a yearly basis as a preventative measure. She knows that if she did not have insurance, instead of paying $1,250 for premiums and copay, she could pay $450 in total for the doctor's visit. However, she chooses to keep the insurance because she is afraid of a broken leg or hospital visit that will cost much more than $1,250 - perhaps more than what she could save over the course of years and years without insurance. This is how insurance works in the free market - Sally pays what she pays because the comfort of knowing that she won't go broke in a few years due to medical expenses outweighs the actual cost that she spends on the insurance.
Not so with a pre-existing condition. Both parties know exactly how much this condition is going to cost in the next few years. In fact, the insurance company probably has a better understanding because of their actuaries. No longer is this a free market contract deal - it is one party feeling as though they deserve coverage and another party knowing that it is financial suicide to offer it.
Perhaps one answer to the question would be insurance contracts that cover the person for any NEW conditions but that specifically exclude conditions that the insured already has. Or the company could offer greater pools of people, mixed with both healthy and unhealth, in order to spread the cost.
On the other hand, for Congress to force this issue upon insurance companies would be a sad day for free markets. It would be an act of giving in to people who feel entitled to something. Put another way, Joe and Amy both make the same amount. Joe has no health care costs. Amy has to spend $5,000 in her health care costs. She feels entitled to have that money back because JOE doesn't have to pay it. There is no guarantee that your life will be as easy as any one other person's. Life is not fair.
I write this only to show that some of the ideas thrown around in the healthcare debate are not logical at all. They are based purely on emotion and on pleasing the crowd, with little thought given to what is actually being said. Even I blindly nodded when people mentioned pre-existing conditions, until I actually sat down to think about the math. Is it right that companies that employ thousands of Americans and provide a valuable service to millions others should go out of business while in the very act of providing what can only be described as forced charity on the rest of the country?
There are other ways.
Saturday, February 13, 2010
The Love Approach
I could not believe the outrage over the Focus on the Family Super Bowl Commercial. Here we have a woman saying how blessed she is to have her son in her life, and a man saying how lucky he is to be alive, and people are upset. How can someone look at this man and tell him that it is wrong for him to be alive? That his mother should not have chosen to let him live? These people call themselves "pro-choice," but in reality they are pro-abortion because otherwise they would have more respect for this woman's choice.
I have long been following the abortion debate, but the almost panicked response of pro-choice groups to this harmless 30-second ad got me thinking about the abortion debate. Crazed, nonsensical, panicked. That's what the pro-choice spokeswomen sounded like. That's the kind of rhetoric one usually hears when someone is backed into a corner, which is odd considering she has the upper hand in both law and the ear of the media.
On the other hand we have the pro-life movement, in this case Focus on the Family, calmly explaining that the ad is not controversial and is about love. Because that's what the pro-life movement has been about - love.
Now, I know there are people who stage violent protests at abortion clinics, murder abortion providers, show disturbing images, and perform undercover sting operations (which the pro-choice movement does as well). However, these types of tactics are not usually condoned by mainstream pro-lifers. And many times they test or break the limits of the law.
Ever since Roe v. Wade, those who respect life have been in an uphill battle. The law is not on our side. Federal funding goes to abortion providers and to provide abortions even in foreign countries. Popular culture is not on our side. The rising numbers of unexpected pregnancies are not on our side.
But in this culture, those who identify themselves as "pro-life" have increased from about a third of the population to over half. And over half is enough to make a difference in the way we elect our government officials. Over 2/3 would be enough for us to overturn Roe v. Wade.
So how do we get there when we are fighting the law, the pro-choice movement, and even the extremist versions of our own movement? The answer is love.
The distinctive factor in the mainstream pro-life movement is that it has to be, by its very nature, a movement about changing hearts. Unlike other movements which have been reinforced with government mandates, this movement is, in its way, against the very law of the land.
However, by using our free speech, love, and with a lot of help from God, we win over hearts. First and foremost, we show women that we love them.
The pro-choice movement wants to paint us as people who hate women. In their eyes we take choices away from women and then judge them for the choices they do make. However, what they do not tell women is that the only choice they offer (abortion) is the one that is most likely to harm them both in the short and long run.
Abortions hurt women. I used to naively think this phrase referred to unborn females. However, in the last few months I have been studying the effects of abortions. There is a great medical risk, first of all, which can cause serious side effects, difficulties carrying future babies, and in some cases death. It is an invasive procedure, as it would have to be. It does not remove a cyst or a tumor that is not supposed to be there, but a baby which the body has fully accepted and will not give up easily.
Then, of course, there are the emotional risks, which tend to be greater the more unsure a woman was about the choice she made. For insance, if someone says she believes abortion is murder but has one performed anyway, then for the rest of her life she is doomed to live knowing that she has committed murder. This guilt is as much self imposed as it would ever be imposed by society.
However, the truth of the pro-life movemement is that we lovingly point out these real risks but let the mother make the final decision. Although we feel the pain of so many unborn babies, we believe in a loving God who will call these innocents home. The focus of the pro-life movement has to be on the mother, and our love for her, and God's love for her.
By using love, we show her that she can be forgiven and redeemed no matter what her decision. If she chooses to keep the baby, we discuss plans for sexual integrity in the future, so that she does not have to go through the pain of this decision again. We help her financially. We discuss adoption. If she chooses abortion, we are there for her in prayer. If she comes back hurt, she will not meet with anger or judgment. Instead, we will show her how God has set out a plan to redeem her and help her find counseling.
(By the way, I recently found out that Project Rachel, which is one of the biggest post-abortion recovery groups in the United States, is a Catholic service. I mention this only to show just how easy it can be to misjudge those who call themselves pro-life. No one is more outspoken against abortions than the Catholic church. However, they also provide the greatest healing services for women who have had abortions. Rather than dole out judgment, the most adamant pro-life group in the world calls hurting women into God's healing arms).
In taking this love approach, we are almost blessed as a movement. I believe that many other Christian movements - indeed Christianity in America itself - have been damaged simply because they are accepted. We are losing Christians right and left, and perhaps this is because we have become complacent. We have forgotten what it means to struggle for what we believe. And we have forgotten the power of love.
I write this today because of the change that observing and being involved in the pro-life movement has done in my heart. By being pro-life, that means I am for all life - both those born and unborn. I have learned the value of every life, which means that I am learning the value of each individual that I meet. To hate is to wish someone dead. To wish someone dead is to wish they had never been born. And to do that, I would be a hypocrite.
Strangely enough, I have almost stopped caring about "saving babies." Perhaps it is because I believe they are already saved. However, my new passion is helping scared, hurting women by showing them love and helping them to make the right choice, even if it is not the easy one.
How grateful I am for this uphill battle, because it would be so easy to take the same route as the pro-choice movement or the extreme pro-life movements. To be vocal and have an ear in the media. To commit acts of violence. To respond to mild threats by snapping back in a panicked frenzy. But women are not tennis balls. They do not deserve to be fought over like a piece of steak by two rabid dogs. They are human beings whom God loves, and who deserve to know the facts, and who deserve to be loved.
I have long been following the abortion debate, but the almost panicked response of pro-choice groups to this harmless 30-second ad got me thinking about the abortion debate. Crazed, nonsensical, panicked. That's what the pro-choice spokeswomen sounded like. That's the kind of rhetoric one usually hears when someone is backed into a corner, which is odd considering she has the upper hand in both law and the ear of the media.
On the other hand we have the pro-life movement, in this case Focus on the Family, calmly explaining that the ad is not controversial and is about love. Because that's what the pro-life movement has been about - love.
Now, I know there are people who stage violent protests at abortion clinics, murder abortion providers, show disturbing images, and perform undercover sting operations (which the pro-choice movement does as well). However, these types of tactics are not usually condoned by mainstream pro-lifers. And many times they test or break the limits of the law.
Ever since Roe v. Wade, those who respect life have been in an uphill battle. The law is not on our side. Federal funding goes to abortion providers and to provide abortions even in foreign countries. Popular culture is not on our side. The rising numbers of unexpected pregnancies are not on our side.
But in this culture, those who identify themselves as "pro-life" have increased from about a third of the population to over half. And over half is enough to make a difference in the way we elect our government officials. Over 2/3 would be enough for us to overturn Roe v. Wade.
So how do we get there when we are fighting the law, the pro-choice movement, and even the extremist versions of our own movement? The answer is love.
The distinctive factor in the mainstream pro-life movement is that it has to be, by its very nature, a movement about changing hearts. Unlike other movements which have been reinforced with government mandates, this movement is, in its way, against the very law of the land.
However, by using our free speech, love, and with a lot of help from God, we win over hearts. First and foremost, we show women that we love them.
The pro-choice movement wants to paint us as people who hate women. In their eyes we take choices away from women and then judge them for the choices they do make. However, what they do not tell women is that the only choice they offer (abortion) is the one that is most likely to harm them both in the short and long run.
Abortions hurt women. I used to naively think this phrase referred to unborn females. However, in the last few months I have been studying the effects of abortions. There is a great medical risk, first of all, which can cause serious side effects, difficulties carrying future babies, and in some cases death. It is an invasive procedure, as it would have to be. It does not remove a cyst or a tumor that is not supposed to be there, but a baby which the body has fully accepted and will not give up easily.
Then, of course, there are the emotional risks, which tend to be greater the more unsure a woman was about the choice she made. For insance, if someone says she believes abortion is murder but has one performed anyway, then for the rest of her life she is doomed to live knowing that she has committed murder. This guilt is as much self imposed as it would ever be imposed by society.
However, the truth of the pro-life movemement is that we lovingly point out these real risks but let the mother make the final decision. Although we feel the pain of so many unborn babies, we believe in a loving God who will call these innocents home. The focus of the pro-life movement has to be on the mother, and our love for her, and God's love for her.
By using love, we show her that she can be forgiven and redeemed no matter what her decision. If she chooses to keep the baby, we discuss plans for sexual integrity in the future, so that she does not have to go through the pain of this decision again. We help her financially. We discuss adoption. If she chooses abortion, we are there for her in prayer. If she comes back hurt, she will not meet with anger or judgment. Instead, we will show her how God has set out a plan to redeem her and help her find counseling.
(By the way, I recently found out that Project Rachel, which is one of the biggest post-abortion recovery groups in the United States, is a Catholic service. I mention this only to show just how easy it can be to misjudge those who call themselves pro-life. No one is more outspoken against abortions than the Catholic church. However, they also provide the greatest healing services for women who have had abortions. Rather than dole out judgment, the most adamant pro-life group in the world calls hurting women into God's healing arms).
In taking this love approach, we are almost blessed as a movement. I believe that many other Christian movements - indeed Christianity in America itself - have been damaged simply because they are accepted. We are losing Christians right and left, and perhaps this is because we have become complacent. We have forgotten what it means to struggle for what we believe. And we have forgotten the power of love.
I write this today because of the change that observing and being involved in the pro-life movement has done in my heart. By being pro-life, that means I am for all life - both those born and unborn. I have learned the value of every life, which means that I am learning the value of each individual that I meet. To hate is to wish someone dead. To wish someone dead is to wish they had never been born. And to do that, I would be a hypocrite.
Strangely enough, I have almost stopped caring about "saving babies." Perhaps it is because I believe they are already saved. However, my new passion is helping scared, hurting women by showing them love and helping them to make the right choice, even if it is not the easy one.
How grateful I am for this uphill battle, because it would be so easy to take the same route as the pro-choice movement or the extreme pro-life movements. To be vocal and have an ear in the media. To commit acts of violence. To respond to mild threats by snapping back in a panicked frenzy. But women are not tennis balls. They do not deserve to be fought over like a piece of steak by two rabid dogs. They are human beings whom God loves, and who deserve to know the facts, and who deserve to be loved.
Monday, February 8, 2010
A Tribute to Star Trek
As I recall, Friday nights were always kind of dry as far as TV shows were concerned. I think this is because producers knew people wouldn't be as likely to stay in. However, Friday nights at our house growing up consisted of a trip to Pizza Hut followed by an all-new episode of Star Trek Voyager. I loved that show! Something about the clean metallic walls and space travel helped me sleep at night.
By the time in high school that my sister introduced me to Star Trek Deep Space Nine, I knew that to watch it would be a "nerdy" taboo. I never liked it as much as Voyager, but I did watch it.
When the new Star Trek movie came out this summer, I wasn't in line to go see it or anything. But I had already planned a trip to Wichita, and the chance to surprise my parents by showing up at the theater presented itself. Even though I missed the first 30 minutes, the movie was great! And so I rented it when it came out.
That got me interested in the original series, which I subsequently Netflixed.
I'm not going to lie, I loved it! I think the terrible special effects are especially appealing to someone of my generation, but it was a good show. It was about a captain of a ship who maintained a moral high road above all, who was advised by a man who only knew logic, and of all the adventures they had.
Many episodes didn't seem like what I thought of as Star Trek. All aliens were just humans with incredible psychic powers. The myth that humans were always the lowest life-form may have began here (doesn't it seem that in any science fiction, aliens always have some sort of advantage, whether physical or telekinetic, over humans, and yet the humans win?)
And, frankly, I can't see how the TV series evolved into something so associated with nerdiness. I believe part of the problem was "Trekkies" themselves. Here people who already struggled to get along in society or relate to their peers found an immense joy in something fictional that they could all share. A love of science seems to be implied, but a love of fantasy is also there. Ultimately, Star Trek is just a story - and who doesn't love a good story?
Still, fascination with Star Trek seems to have a more negative connotation than, say, fascination with sports. Society at large seems to have chosen one hobby that is acceptable over another hobby that is not. Why is that? Is it because sports are in the now, while Star Trek is a fictional future? Is it because people think (wrongly, I believe) that you need to have some understanding and love of science to relate to science fiction? Is it because sports are seen as more manly, and therefore men who like Star Trek are not following the pre-defined evolutionary route of man?
Whatever the cause, there is a sad result. Even people who casually like Star Trek (here defined as watching any or all of the series or movies but not going to conventions or buying exorbitant amounts of souveniers) and see its value as a good story feel compelled to hide this interest. On the radio this summer, I heard DJ's surprised that the Star Trek movie was so good, and a third DJ was being called a Trekkie even though it sounded like he only watched casually.
Much like in my Tribute to Crossword puzzles, I don't think that interests and hobbies should be so dramatically belittled by society, especially considering that a person may have little control over his interests. Someone may not be able to join in his buddies' review of the funniest parts of "The Office" because he was watching the latest Star Trek series, but he should at least feel free to say so.
And that goes for other "nerdy" past times as well. Anything sci-fi or fantasy related shouldn't be shunned by society. I have also enjoyed, in my time, Star Wars, Harry Potter, and Sherlock Holmes, but you would have to hang me by my nails to get me to admit it in a room full of strangers.
And finally, Star Trek represents many aspects of The Great Thinkers of history. For it was the Trekkies of their day who pioneered almost any scientific advancement we enjoy today. Further, Star Trek pioneered social reforms as well, as it envisoned a future without race and where women were equal to men, and it did so without the obvious political undertones seen in so many of today's TV shows.
So if you have the ability, watch a season of Star Trek sometime. You may be pleasantly surprised. (Just avoid the movie Star Trek I - somebody had a serious case of writer's block when that one was made).
By the time in high school that my sister introduced me to Star Trek Deep Space Nine, I knew that to watch it would be a "nerdy" taboo. I never liked it as much as Voyager, but I did watch it.
When the new Star Trek movie came out this summer, I wasn't in line to go see it or anything. But I had already planned a trip to Wichita, and the chance to surprise my parents by showing up at the theater presented itself. Even though I missed the first 30 minutes, the movie was great! And so I rented it when it came out.
That got me interested in the original series, which I subsequently Netflixed.
I'm not going to lie, I loved it! I think the terrible special effects are especially appealing to someone of my generation, but it was a good show. It was about a captain of a ship who maintained a moral high road above all, who was advised by a man who only knew logic, and of all the adventures they had.
Many episodes didn't seem like what I thought of as Star Trek. All aliens were just humans with incredible psychic powers. The myth that humans were always the lowest life-form may have began here (doesn't it seem that in any science fiction, aliens always have some sort of advantage, whether physical or telekinetic, over humans, and yet the humans win?)
And, frankly, I can't see how the TV series evolved into something so associated with nerdiness. I believe part of the problem was "Trekkies" themselves. Here people who already struggled to get along in society or relate to their peers found an immense joy in something fictional that they could all share. A love of science seems to be implied, but a love of fantasy is also there. Ultimately, Star Trek is just a story - and who doesn't love a good story?
Still, fascination with Star Trek seems to have a more negative connotation than, say, fascination with sports. Society at large seems to have chosen one hobby that is acceptable over another hobby that is not. Why is that? Is it because sports are in the now, while Star Trek is a fictional future? Is it because people think (wrongly, I believe) that you need to have some understanding and love of science to relate to science fiction? Is it because sports are seen as more manly, and therefore men who like Star Trek are not following the pre-defined evolutionary route of man?
Whatever the cause, there is a sad result. Even people who casually like Star Trek (here defined as watching any or all of the series or movies but not going to conventions or buying exorbitant amounts of souveniers) and see its value as a good story feel compelled to hide this interest. On the radio this summer, I heard DJ's surprised that the Star Trek movie was so good, and a third DJ was being called a Trekkie even though it sounded like he only watched casually.
Much like in my Tribute to Crossword puzzles, I don't think that interests and hobbies should be so dramatically belittled by society, especially considering that a person may have little control over his interests. Someone may not be able to join in his buddies' review of the funniest parts of "The Office" because he was watching the latest Star Trek series, but he should at least feel free to say so.
And that goes for other "nerdy" past times as well. Anything sci-fi or fantasy related shouldn't be shunned by society. I have also enjoyed, in my time, Star Wars, Harry Potter, and Sherlock Holmes, but you would have to hang me by my nails to get me to admit it in a room full of strangers.
And finally, Star Trek represents many aspects of The Great Thinkers of history. For it was the Trekkies of their day who pioneered almost any scientific advancement we enjoy today. Further, Star Trek pioneered social reforms as well, as it envisoned a future without race and where women were equal to men, and it did so without the obvious political undertones seen in so many of today's TV shows.
So if you have the ability, watch a season of Star Trek sometime. You may be pleasantly surprised. (Just avoid the movie Star Trek I - somebody had a serious case of writer's block when that one was made).
Sunday, February 7, 2010
A Tribute to Crossword Puzzles
In the fall of this year I purchased the World's Largest Crossword Puzzle. Measuring something like 7 X 8 feet, it hangs on my wall above my stair and takes up the entire space. I must stand on a chair to reach the highest clues, and the puzzle goes down to the floorboards.
Once the puzzle was hung up and I had taken my first try at the top row of clues, I sat back to reflect. This was my cat. By purchasing such an obvioust time waster, something that others couldn't understand, I had essentially declared to the world my intention to hole myself up in my house and withdraw into intellectualism. I didn't play the crossword puzzle at all for at least a week.
But I had underestimated myself. First of all, the puzzle proved to be of great assistance to my stage of life. Working the unpredictable hours that I did, I could not develop hobbies dependent on the outside world. To say that Wednesdays I would go to choir practice or to sign up for a pottery class would have been impossible. It was true I had no friends in the area outside my house, but my situation did not afford such things. The crossword puzzle gave me more relief than I had imagined. It was a project that did not rely on schedules or obligations. As winter progressed I found it to be warm. Indeed, this was my hobby because I could not have a hobby. I could pick it up or set it down at any moment, and it would always be there. Before I had wasted what little time off I had because I had no established protocol for how to use the time.
I had weekends off this fall, but they were busy (with what I cannot remember). It was on weekends that my joy of the crossword puzzle grew. I found tha tin the mornings th elight would stream through my window (provided the day was not cloudy) and land on the puzzle itself, if not the floor beneath it. Working on my puzzle was then the warmest activity I could do. Pacing back and forth gave me some exercise. I would play a movie that I could scarce give any attention to, and pour Mountain Dew into a wine goblet to feel sophisticated.
Because that is ultimately the way crossword puzzles make me feel. Before I purchased this giant puzzle, I had always enjoyed the daily puzzles in newspapers wherever I went. The sophistication came from playing a game that relied upon knowledge.
Some clues don't vary much. I can't begin to explain how many times I have seen "Tara" as the answer to a clue, that says, "O'Hara's Plantation" or some other such nonsense. Clues don't necessarily expand the vocabulary, either, and in some senses contract it.
However, there are better clues. I have mentioned my love of roman numerals. I find references to these all over crossword puzzles. Sometimes I am asked to do math, others to translate. My biggest flaw is that I can never remember the differences between "L" and "D" (50 and 500).
Clues may be about foreign languages. I usually skip over French (unless it is "ami", "Friend"), German, Italian, and Latin until I can fill in most of the letters. However, I find the Spanish clues delightful. I only wish they were deeper than "senor" and "Este" now and then.
However, what I love most (and find most "sophisticated") about the crossword puzzles is that you cannot get along by just memorizing typical answers. Every now and then a real clue is thrown in. These clues require you to know a great many things: history, literature, movies, politics, law. And they usually come in the form of the longest answers on the list. I love to congratulate myself on knowing the importance of the Lusitania.
(Clues in the newspaper crosswords may also be answers to little jokes. These plays on words are dreadful when you can't figure them out, but quite fun to see the result when you do).
Although I suppose crossword puzzles are somewhat univeral, I continue to associate them with people of my grandma's generation. I continue this association for selfish reasons, I suppose, especially if I am wrong about it. I have a little snobbery when it comes to people of my generation, and in some senses I see older as better. Pastimes associated with times "ago" certainly seem more innocent, but also intellectual. I find it hard to picture the average teenager today sititng down to a crossword puzzle and carefully thinking over the clues presented to him.
On the other hand, this association causes me some embarrassment, especially given my fear of people equating the puzzle with a cat.
In the end, though, I suppose I can neither take vain pride in my enjoyment nor cower from it. It is in fact an enjoyment - nothing more, nothing less. It would be as hard to explain my dislike of pickles compared to my love of puppy chow. It is simply a matter of taste.
Once the puzzle was hung up and I had taken my first try at the top row of clues, I sat back to reflect. This was my cat. By purchasing such an obvioust time waster, something that others couldn't understand, I had essentially declared to the world my intention to hole myself up in my house and withdraw into intellectualism. I didn't play the crossword puzzle at all for at least a week.
But I had underestimated myself. First of all, the puzzle proved to be of great assistance to my stage of life. Working the unpredictable hours that I did, I could not develop hobbies dependent on the outside world. To say that Wednesdays I would go to choir practice or to sign up for a pottery class would have been impossible. It was true I had no friends in the area outside my house, but my situation did not afford such things. The crossword puzzle gave me more relief than I had imagined. It was a project that did not rely on schedules or obligations. As winter progressed I found it to be warm. Indeed, this was my hobby because I could not have a hobby. I could pick it up or set it down at any moment, and it would always be there. Before I had wasted what little time off I had because I had no established protocol for how to use the time.
I had weekends off this fall, but they were busy (with what I cannot remember). It was on weekends that my joy of the crossword puzzle grew. I found tha tin the mornings th elight would stream through my window (provided the day was not cloudy) and land on the puzzle itself, if not the floor beneath it. Working on my puzzle was then the warmest activity I could do. Pacing back and forth gave me some exercise. I would play a movie that I could scarce give any attention to, and pour Mountain Dew into a wine goblet to feel sophisticated.
Because that is ultimately the way crossword puzzles make me feel. Before I purchased this giant puzzle, I had always enjoyed the daily puzzles in newspapers wherever I went. The sophistication came from playing a game that relied upon knowledge.
Some clues don't vary much. I can't begin to explain how many times I have seen "Tara" as the answer to a clue, that says, "O'Hara's Plantation" or some other such nonsense. Clues don't necessarily expand the vocabulary, either, and in some senses contract it.
However, there are better clues. I have mentioned my love of roman numerals. I find references to these all over crossword puzzles. Sometimes I am asked to do math, others to translate. My biggest flaw is that I can never remember the differences between "L" and "D" (50 and 500).
Clues may be about foreign languages. I usually skip over French (unless it is "ami", "Friend"), German, Italian, and Latin until I can fill in most of the letters. However, I find the Spanish clues delightful. I only wish they were deeper than "senor" and "Este" now and then.
However, what I love most (and find most "sophisticated") about the crossword puzzles is that you cannot get along by just memorizing typical answers. Every now and then a real clue is thrown in. These clues require you to know a great many things: history, literature, movies, politics, law. And they usually come in the form of the longest answers on the list. I love to congratulate myself on knowing the importance of the Lusitania.
(Clues in the newspaper crosswords may also be answers to little jokes. These plays on words are dreadful when you can't figure them out, but quite fun to see the result when you do).
Although I suppose crossword puzzles are somewhat univeral, I continue to associate them with people of my grandma's generation. I continue this association for selfish reasons, I suppose, especially if I am wrong about it. I have a little snobbery when it comes to people of my generation, and in some senses I see older as better. Pastimes associated with times "ago" certainly seem more innocent, but also intellectual. I find it hard to picture the average teenager today sititng down to a crossword puzzle and carefully thinking over the clues presented to him.
On the other hand, this association causes me some embarrassment, especially given my fear of people equating the puzzle with a cat.
In the end, though, I suppose I can neither take vain pride in my enjoyment nor cower from it. It is in fact an enjoyment - nothing more, nothing less. It would be as hard to explain my dislike of pickles compared to my love of puppy chow. It is simply a matter of taste.
Wednesday, February 3, 2010
A Tribute to Roman Numerals
As hot August days turned into hot September nights, four unique auditors continued to huddle around a cramped table trying to finish up what may have been one of the world's worst audits. We were as different as four people could be. Our religions ranged from atheist to devout. Our politics seemed to follow the same lines. Our hobbies included dogs, drinking, drinking, and eccentricity.
However, one evening we were united by a simple comment from our fearless leader when she said, "You know what really makes my day? When you're typing your phone number into a form on the internet and it automatically jumps to the next space." How true. It really does make one's day.
As we commented on her discovery, we made a discovery of our own - that we were in a circle of safety. Despite our differences, we could unite around the fact that, unfortunately or not, we were accountants. And as such, we have little quirks that mostly only accountants (or nerds) and people with OCD could have.
So I have decided to pay tribute to my nerdiness - things that bring me joy that probably bring very few other people in the world the same joy as they do me.
And, of course what tribute to nerdiness would be complete without a tribute to Roman Numerals?
As a child, I was vaguely aware and curious about the odd letters on clocks that were supposedly numbers. I learned what they meant more out of an understanding of the location of the hands of the clock (VI was down at the bottom and therefore must mean six) than because I was taught.
Imagine my joy as an accountant when I learned this new number system formally! Oh how I loved using the formula to determine what letter to place next. I loved counting: I, II, III, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII, IX, X, XI, XII, XIII, XIV, XV, XVI, XVII, XVIII, XIX, XX, watching the length of the number grow and shrink - so unlike our systematic arabic numerals!
Of course, to add to this joy, I believe the class that taught us the mysteries behind the roman numerals also taught us the wonders of outlines. For the rest of that school year I took every opportunity to make my notes in outline - I loved to see how many letters or numbers I would accumulate before having to start over again. I loved to see how far indented I could get - switching I - A - 1 - a - i...and so on!
Now add the accountant's final joy, not discovered until years later in my first Tax class - IRS Code! The code took my outlining and turned it into a word. Section 106(A)(2)(c)(ii). If I could ever use this system, I did!
If ever there was someone destined to love roman numerals, outlines, and IRS code references, it was me. As a small child I took every opportunity to line things up and categorize them. If it could be lined up or sorted, it was done: I sorted the silverware going into the dishwasher as well as out of it, I sorted crayons by color or length, I was constantly changing the arrangement of CD's and books, and I took all my toys and simply lined them up in great long rows.
To this we add an interest in codes and foreign languages, which explains some of my joy with the roman numerals. Knowing that I was born in MCMLXXXIV and that this year is MMX makes me feel educated at least, like a kind of spy on a good day.
Of course, all this knowledge is all but useless in modern days except when outlining or reading the backs of movies. There is one additional use of roman numerals, which leads me to my next ode to nerdiness subject, the crossword puzzle!
However, one evening we were united by a simple comment from our fearless leader when she said, "You know what really makes my day? When you're typing your phone number into a form on the internet and it automatically jumps to the next space." How true. It really does make one's day.
As we commented on her discovery, we made a discovery of our own - that we were in a circle of safety. Despite our differences, we could unite around the fact that, unfortunately or not, we were accountants. And as such, we have little quirks that mostly only accountants (or nerds) and people with OCD could have.
So I have decided to pay tribute to my nerdiness - things that bring me joy that probably bring very few other people in the world the same joy as they do me.
And, of course what tribute to nerdiness would be complete without a tribute to Roman Numerals?
As a child, I was vaguely aware and curious about the odd letters on clocks that were supposedly numbers. I learned what they meant more out of an understanding of the location of the hands of the clock (VI was down at the bottom and therefore must mean six) than because I was taught.
Imagine my joy as an accountant when I learned this new number system formally! Oh how I loved using the formula to determine what letter to place next. I loved counting: I, II, III, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII, IX, X, XI, XII, XIII, XIV, XV, XVI, XVII, XVIII, XIX, XX, watching the length of the number grow and shrink - so unlike our systematic arabic numerals!
Of course, to add to this joy, I believe the class that taught us the mysteries behind the roman numerals also taught us the wonders of outlines. For the rest of that school year I took every opportunity to make my notes in outline - I loved to see how many letters or numbers I would accumulate before having to start over again. I loved to see how far indented I could get - switching I - A - 1 - a - i...and so on!
Now add the accountant's final joy, not discovered until years later in my first Tax class - IRS Code! The code took my outlining and turned it into a word. Section 106(A)(2)(c)(ii). If I could ever use this system, I did!
If ever there was someone destined to love roman numerals, outlines, and IRS code references, it was me. As a small child I took every opportunity to line things up and categorize them. If it could be lined up or sorted, it was done: I sorted the silverware going into the dishwasher as well as out of it, I sorted crayons by color or length, I was constantly changing the arrangement of CD's and books, and I took all my toys and simply lined them up in great long rows.
To this we add an interest in codes and foreign languages, which explains some of my joy with the roman numerals. Knowing that I was born in MCMLXXXIV and that this year is MMX makes me feel educated at least, like a kind of spy on a good day.
Of course, all this knowledge is all but useless in modern days except when outlining or reading the backs of movies. There is one additional use of roman numerals, which leads me to my next ode to nerdiness subject, the crossword puzzle!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)